Subscription and demo access

About Interfax
Press Releases
Products & Services
Contact us
Customer Login


02/22 21:56   Tartu peace treaty with Soviet Russia is fundamental document for Estonia - PM
02/22 21:31   Ukrainian military report renewed fighting on Donbas contact line
02/22 21:15   Rosneft's Casimiro sanctioned by U.S., quits board at India's Nayara Energy
02/22 21:00   Russian athletes in Italy not facing arrest after searches - embassy
02/22 20:28   Putin arrives in Sochi for combat sambo tournament
02/22 20:08   Russian source confirms start of Pantsir air defense system delivery to Serbia

You can access a demo version of, recieve more information about or subscribe to Interfax publications by filling in and sending the form below.

First name:

Last name:







Please enter the digits in the box below:  |  Interviews  |  Jens Stoltenberg: NATO planning for future without INF Treaty and with more...


March 21, 2019

Jens Stoltenberg: NATO planning for future without INF Treaty and with more Russian nuclear missiles in Europe

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has given an interview to Interfax ahead of the Alliances 70th anniversary that is to be celebrated on April 4. He speaks in the interview about the NATOs vision of future relations with Russia, its attitude to the situation surrounding the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) Treaty and the New START Treaty, as well as further plans of expanding the Alliance.

Question: NATO was formed during the Cold War era as an instrument of countering the Soviet Union and later the Warsaw Treaty Organization. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union there was a brief thaw in the NATO-Russia relationship and the question even arose of Russias membership in the alliance. Now it seems that countering the threat of Russia has become the essence of NATOs existence, or at least its military element. If there was no Russia, would NATO be still relevant? Do you think that one day Russia may become a member of the alliance, and if yes, then under what conditions?

Answer: NATO is a defensive organization that protects nearly one billion people. For seventy years it has kept peace in Europe. However, today we face the most unpredictable security situation in many years. NATO is responding across the board, including to a more assertive Russia, cyber and hybrid threats, instability across the Middle East and North Africa, and a continued terrorist threat.

For more than two decades, NATO consistently worked to build a cooperative relationship with Russia, but in March 2014, NATO suspended practical cooperation because of Russias illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. At the same time, NATO has kept channels for communication with Russia open, including the NATO-Russia Council. We want a better relationship with Russia, but for that to be possible, Russia must respect international rules, and play a constructive role in international security.

Q.: NATO froze all official contacts with Russia in 2014. Isnt it time to reanimate and intensify them, before it is too late and the point of no return is passed? This crisis has already gone too far?

A.: It is important to remember why NATO froze practical cooperation with Russia in 2014. We took this decision because of Russias actions against Ukraine, including the illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea which we do not and will not recognize. And most recently, the aggressive Russian behavior in the Kerch strait.

We also have other serious concerns about Russias behavior, including its ongoing violation of the INF Treaty, support for the brutal Syrian regime, cyber-attacks and propaganda, and the use of a military-grade nerve agent in the United Kingdom.

NATO does not want to isolate Russia. We do not want a new arms race or a new Cold War. However, for our relationship to improve, Moscow has to respect international law. NATO has a dual-track approach to Russia: strong defense, and meaningful dialogue. I chaired a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council in January our ninth since 2016 and I regularly meet with Foreign Minister Lavrov, most recently at the Munich Security Conference in February. Dialogue with Russia can be difficult, but that is exactly why it is so important: to reduce risks and misunderstandings.

Q.: One of the elements of the crisis is the possible dismantling of the INF Treaty. The Russian side has warned that the countries where U.S. missiles will be stationed will become targets of Russias missiles. How seriously has NATO treated these warnings? Is the alliance ready to become Russias military target? Could this result in applying Article 5 of the Washington Treaty?

A.: Russian statements threatening to target Allies are unacceptable and counterproductive. The SSC-8 missile system developed and deployed by Russia violates the INF Treaty, and poses a significant risk to our security. These missiles are mobile and hard to detect. They can reach European cities with little warning, carrying conventional or nuclear warheads, and they lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons.

The United States and other Allies have engaged with Russia about this missile system for several years. Unfortunately, Russia has not shown any willingness to return to compliance. That is why the United States, with the full support of all NATO Allies, has announced its intention to withdraw from the INF Treaty. This will take several months, so Russia still has a chance to come back into compliance. We call on Russia to take this opportunity.

At the same time, NATO is preparing for a world without the INF Treaty. Any steps we take, we will take together. NATO will continue to maintain credible and effective deterrence and defense. However, we do not intend to deploy new land-based nuclear missiles in Europe.

Q.: What steps does NATO intend to make in order to avoid repeating the European missile crisis of 1980s? Or is NATO perceiving military means only through the lens of the further countering Russias threat even in the absence of the INF Treaty?

A.: Russia is responsible for putting the INF Treaty in jeopardy by developing and deploying its SSC-8 missile system. NATOs focus is to preserve the INF Treaty and there is a window of opportunity for Russia to come back into compliance. At the same time, we are planning for a future without the INF Treaty, and with more Russian nuclear missiles in Europe. We continue to closely review the security implications of Russian intermediate-range missiles. We will not pre-empt the outcome of this analysis or work at NATO. Any response will be developed collectively, by all Allies, in a measured and defensive way.

Q.: Is NATO considering the option of further strengthening the European missile defense segment over the INF Treaty situation?

A.: NATOs Ballistic Missile Defense is purely defensive and not directed against Russia. The system defends against ballistic missiles from outside the Euro-Atlantic area. NATO has attempted many times to cooperate with Russia on missile defense. I stress again that Russia still has an opportunity to come back into compliance with the INF Treaty. This is Russias responsibility because Russia is in violation of the Treaty.

Q.: The United States explains its decision to suspend, and then withdraw from the INF Treaty due to the situation surrounding Russias 9M729 (NATO reporting name SSC-8) missile. Why is NATO, which sees eye to eye with the U.S. on this issue, reluctant to study in detail the characteristics of this missile with the participation of experts on both sides, relying only on its own data?

A.: All 29 NATO Allies agree that Russia is violating the INF Treaty. This shared position is based on intelligence from Allies, including the United States. The United States has also been very clear that Russias attempts to demonstrate compliance with the Treaty are not credible and fall short of what is required. None of Russias proposals would allow observers to verify the range of the missile system.

Q.: Washington believes that the INF Treaty is morally outdated and that new, more comprehensive multilateral agreements on the missile control are needed. Is NATO prepared to join such multilateral negotiations? Which players do you see sitting at the negotiating table?

A.: Several countries, including China, India, Pakistan and Iran, are developing and deploying intermediate-range weapons that are within the ranges prohibited by the INF Treaty. Effective arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation are essential for international security, so Allies remain open to further arms control initiatives. At the same time, efforts to broaden the arms control regime are in no way an excuse for Russia to continue to violate the INF Treaty.

Q.: After the de-facto dismantlement of the INF Treaty, the New START Treaty has remained the only mechanism ensuring mutual transparency in the sphere of nuclear arms control. Washington is not giving a definite answer about whether this treaty will be extended beyond 2021. Experts believe that if this treaty is also dismantled, neither Russia, nor the U.S. will know what is happening to the nuclear stock on either side. Arent you afraid of this prospect? Are you going to convince Washington to preserve the New START Treaty?

A.: NATO has a long-standing commitment to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. Russias violation of the INF Treaty erodes the foundations of effective arms control and undermines Allied security. The New START Treaty has achieved a lot. Last year marked an important milestone when the U.S. and Russia met the Treatys central limits in February 2018, representing a significant reduction in strategic nuclear systems from Cold War highs. This shows disarmament efforts can deliver real results.

The New START Treaty and the INF Treaty regulate two different types of weapon systems. Both the U.S. and Russia agree the New START Treaty is being respected. This is not the case with the INF Treaty. Allies will not allow the INF Treaty to be violated with impunity, because that would undermine trust in arms control in general. The onus is on Russia to return to full compliance.

Q.: How do you view NATOs future after the 70th anniversary? Is the alliance going to keep its policy of expansion, and if yes, then in what directions: south, north or east? Who is the next in line to join the alliance? Does NATO plan to expand its sphere of influence? What regions do you view as priorities?

A.: NATO does not believe in the outdated notion of spheres of influence. NATO is made up of democratic countries that have each made the sovereign decision to join the Alliance. Every nation is entitled to determine its own future; no other country has the right to interfere. NATOs open door policy is one of our great success stories. Welcoming new members into the NATO family has made Europe and North America more secure. Together, we stand in defense of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. In February, NATO Allies signed the Accession Protocol for North Macedonia. Once all Allies have ratified the Accession Protocol, the country will become the 30th member of our Alliance.

Q.: After Georgia and Ukraine join NATO as is planned, the alliance will actually have built Roman lines along Russias southwestern borders. Is this not sufficient reason for Moscow to boost its defense capabilities as an organization that considers Russia its strategic adversary encircles it?

A.: This myth of encirclement ignores geography. Russias land border is just over 20,000 kilometers long. Of that, less than one-sixteenth (1,215 kilometers), is shared with NATO members. Russia has land borders with fourteen countries. Only five of them are NATO members. Outside NATO territory, the Alliance only has a military presence in two places: Kosovo and Afghanistan. Both missions are carried out under a United Nations mandate, endorsed by the UN Security Council, of which Russia is a permanent member. In contrast, Russia has military bases and soldiers in three countries Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine without the consent of their elected governments.


New U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Sullivan, who has recently started his mission in Moscow, has given an interview to Interfax in which he speaks about priorities of his work and assesses the prospects of developing bilateral relations.

The En+ Group effectively turned a new page in its corporate history in 2019. Now the group has a unique governance scheme for Russia - without a domineering shareholder and a loyal majority on the board of directors. The board chairman, Lord Gregory Barker, is convinced that the changes adopted in the framework of the plan he devised to get the company removed from the U.S. sanctions list will ultimately do the company and its shareholders good, irrespective of the deal with OFAC. Lord Barker told Interfax in an interview about the work of the new En+ board, dividends and long-term strategy.

Ambassador of the United Kingdom to Russia Laurie Bristow, who is leaving his post, has given an exclusive interview to Interfax in which he speaks about prospects of relations with Russia, arms control, the situation in Syria and surrounding Iran, as well as other topical problems on the international agenda.

Cooperation between OPEC and non-OPEC countries, foremost Russia, has lasted for three years already and in this time the oil market has seen shakeups that have threatened to cause a split within OPEC and jeopardized the fate of the OPEC+ agreement to curb oil production in order to balance the market. OPEC Secretary General Mohammed Barkindo spoke with Interfax on the sidelines of the 16th annual meeting of the Valdai Club in Sochi about how decisions are made and OPECs position regarding geopolitical events that have hit oil markets.

U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Huntsman, who will leave his post in early October, has given an interview to Interfax in which he speaks about exchanges at the highest level between Moscow and Washington, a possibility of Russias return to G8, as well as his vision of the future of U.S.-Russian relations.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has given an interview to Interfax in which he speaks about the U.S. withdrawal from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty on that is expected on August 2, about Russia‘s response to the U.S. and NATO possible deployment of missiles banned by the treaty, and about whether the Cuban Missile Crisis may repeat itself.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will hold negotiations on the sidelines of the Petersburg Dialogue forum in Germany on Thursday. Maas has given an interview to Interfax ahead of the forum, in which he speaks about prospects of settling the conflict in Ukraine, Germanys preparations for ensuring security in the absence of the INF Treaty and attempts to save the Iranian nuclear deal.


 ©   1991—2020   "Interfax News Agency" JSC. All rights reserved.
Contact information   |   Privacy Policy   |   Interfax offices   |   made by web.finmarket

News and other data on this site are provided for information purposes only, and are not intended for republication or redistribution. Republication or redistribution of Interfax content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Interfax.

Browse other Interfax sites:   |   IFX.RU   |   Interfax Group   Rambler's Top100